The future of Windows should be open source
In a recent interview with Microsoft's COO Kevin Turner, the executive was asked about the future of Windows. In response, Turner had this to say: "Certainly, this last year has been an unprecedented year for Vista and Office and the launch," Turner said. "And we are still committed to the desktop. There will be another release and launch of a Vista-type operating system. [And] there will be another release of Office."
In typical Microsoft fashion, he continued: "You don't want this audience to abandon Windows, so it's important to remind them that Windows is still the most interesting operating system to develop for."
If I were to judge the future of Microsoft based on these two statements, we should look for another version of Windows in about five years. And while I agree there should be another version of Windows and Office, I will disagree with the business model. Forget about paying a couple hundred dollars for an operating system that is riddled with problems, the next version of Windows should be open source!
Wow, did I just say that? It felt so good! And while I know the next few iterations will cost us a cool $200 just to play around on a new GUI, why shouldn't Windows be open source? Why should a company with no debt and enough cash to buy up almost any country in the world release a product that is not only technically inferior, but dangerous to use if you don't know how to play with it?
But I digress. Windows will never be open source because Microsoft simply despises the open source movement and will never shy away from an opportunity to make some extra money. Yes, I know the company executives are trying to run a business and losing that revenue would be difficult to swallow, but I don't think Microsoft would lose that much revenue.
Consider this: right now you can download a Linux distribution or Open Office without the hassles of paying for it and yet new versions come out all the time. Worried about revenue? Let us download it from the Internet -- you know, over that super-fast connection we've been promised for years -- and put some advertising on the download site and the installation process. You're Microsoft! I'm sure someone will pay lots of money to see their company's logo on the new Windows installation screen.
But regardless of money, the time has come for Windows and Office to be open source. Not only are Linux distributions far exceeding the capabilities of a Windows box, but Open Office can provide much of the same functionality as the wildly expensive Microsoft version. Granted, right now I would choose Microsoft Office over Open Office, but give it a few years and I think I'll change my mind.
The simple fact is most people are tired of paying exorbitant fees for basically the same product every few years.
And this talk about people buying Windows machines because they use them in the office is starting to get on my nerves too. If that's true, why is Apple gaining market share and why is Dell releasing Ubuntu on its systems? Windows is slowly but surely becoming a dying breed. It may take a good ten or twenty years, but it will happen. Trust me on this one.
But perhaps the most compelling reason why Windows should go open source is because of the Internet. Simply put, the industry is moving towards the Internet and local desktop programs, while still popular because of slow connection speeds, have their days numbered. With Web 2.0 taking control of the software business and products being released that work best on the web, why should we spend time fooling around with a desktop application? And if you haven't noticed, most programs already use the Internet in one way or another.
More than Windows becoming obsolete, the desktop is becoming obsolete. As technology progresses and our toys become more advanced, instant access is key. In the past, desktop applications just worked -- in the future we will be laughing at them.
Windows is not immune to the ever-growing shadow the Internet is casting. As connection speeds increase, it will become more likely that people will use the Internet for all of their needs. For example, right now, I can't easily connect to my home computer and use it as if I was there. With a future web-based OS or even an open source OS that people have modified, I may be able to have a slew of products capable of running my entire home OS. Granted there would be storage needs and other issues to combat, but this isn't about proof of concept.
And yet, the question remains: why open source? Well, why not? I'm a firm believer in the open source movement and the ability for the public to take a company's code and strengthen and tailor it to fit its needs. Hasn't anyone ever given thought to the fact that an open source Windows would mean less security issues? Right now we're entrusting an outdated bible of code to get us through the next five years without any serious security issues. I don't know about you, but that doesn't instill too much confidence in me. But if we opened the code to the public, not only would experts strengthen it, but maybe they would do away with one of the main issues with Windows: its inexorable connection to the past. The current Windows code needs to accommodate many of the old Windows operating systems and in turn, many of the old issues. Not good, not good at all.
But alas, we are left with an operating system that will never go open source and a business model that has worked in the past, so surely, it should work in the future, right? It's sad to say, but unless Microsoft wakes up and realizes the current trend in the industry, Windows and Office as we know it, may meet an early demise.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
So the imcompatibility of the business model is what won't ever drive MS or Apple into releasing their source. Their bottom line is what makes them what they are.
First off, open source will not take over the world. Despite your (and my) greatest hopes and dreams.
Second, Microsoft is here to stay. Their business model won't change because it doesn't have to. There are no pressing matters (including open source) that would require it to change to meet market demands. In fact, it's quite the opposite. They thrive because they are meeting the market demands. Security issues, bugs, et al.
Third, I don't know why you are making predictions about the next Windows OS. It's been slated for release in 2009, Windows Vienna (as codenamed). Not five years from now.
Fourth, do some research pleeeeaaaassseee. I'm glad to see this is just a blog and not a front page article.
If you think it's possible to implement rich Office experience using HTML/Ajax... you're just stupid, no offense ;)
We have great rich opensource software like OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME and all their apps - to suggest that we are just going to throw that all away and be left with a single app, the web-browser, as a single full screen app, is just silly.
One can try to emulate desktop apps with web apps, but you'll never get close to the rich user experience - and of course Office, OpenOffice, Thunderbird et al are improving all the time.
And why try to supplant great opensource apps with half-baked web apps full of ads?! rather make the opensource apps like OpenOffice more internetized. Why can't apps run outside the browser? Why does everything have to run inside the browser - including Office, email et al - it's just silly!
The web browser (eg. firefox) will never match the abilities of OS/desktop (eg. Linux/KDE/GNOME) in terms of managing resources, application processes, application windows, eg. switching, minimising, exposing, etcetera, etcetera. Why try to turn a 5Mb browser app into a 100Mb graphical desktop environment, when the likes of KDE and GNOME exist?
No one will ever again develop a graphical desktop environment, from scratch, that can match KDE and GNOME, or would want to... MacOSX is NextStep legacy Objective-C rubbish underneath, and Windows is well... also legacy proprietry rubbish underneath.
So to summarise, rather than desktop apps going away, desktop apps will become more leveraging of the internet and leverable via the internet, eg. launch from the internet, persist settings et al to the internet. They already update from the internet which you might have noticed.
Okay - so we have RHEL which is late on getting patches out to the OS as vulnerabilities come out, we have Fedora which is ahead of the curve on pre-installed software versions and incompatible w/ other programs that require older versions (ie, jre and mozilla and kernel versions), we have Ubuntu which is as robust as any other linux based OS (mandrake, gentoo, etc) yet is equally bloated with services running as Windows. Has anybody tried to get the latest version of anything installed smoothly on the first try? No - they had to make symbolic links and whatnot. How much easier was it to install the same programs in Windows?
How about gaming? When did linux spank Windows in its ability to accomodate advanced graphics for games?
How about hardware? How hard was it to get your wifi device to work out of the box when they didn't develop the drivers?
Remember NDIS wrapper and madwifi? When did your quad-head video card work under linux?
Why does openoffice look/feel so much like MS office? Because even though you're not using an MS product, you're still pwned by it.
So MS releases an OS every couple of years, how often does a new RH or Fedora version come out? Even ubuntu? Months....months. The only major one that's not following the RH/etc trend is slackware - who's on their own schedule and nobody elses.
The point of open source is for development/fixing bugs and whatnot - not to make it available at no cost. So if the source is available, you might still have to pay $200 for it...would that really appease anybody? Are people experienced enough to write their own MS code?
For a home user....linux? Bah. The only reason for going towards linux as a home user is if you don't want to pay for the OS license for Windows - other than that, there's no real advantage. Linux desktop OSes need to be patched just as frequently and are less interoperable.
New machines come bundled with the OSes at a very very low price. One can say that it comes w/ a ton of junk, but that's how the price is so low. Add/remove programs. (it's much easier than installing an OS and finding the SATA drivers and then downloading the other drivers AND it comes with a year of support).
Remember econ class? Now why in the world would MS make an OS free of cost? Mow my lawn, I won't pay you for it - but thanks for hard work.
Nobody has created a more secure, out of the box, operating system as vista ...not solaris, not openbsd, nobody. Let's go back to the econ class again...what's your time worth? Okay, take that and multiply that by the amount of time it would take to harden your OS to the degree of vista on a new computer. Hopefully, you've exceeded $200.
"More than Windows becoming obsolete, the desktop is becoming obsolete. As technology progresses and our toys become more advanced, instant access is key. In the past, desktop applications just worked -- in the future we will be laughing at them."
...I have no idea what this has to do w/ Microsoft going open source. If you're going for instant access, MS is the way to go - twiddling around trying to get a browser plugin is not really instant access.
"And this talk about people buying Windows machines because they use them in the office is starting to get on my nerves too. If that's true, why is Apple gaining market share and why is Dell releasing Ubuntu on its systems? Windows is slowly but surely becoming a dying breed. It may take a good ten or twenty years, but it will happen. Trust me on this one." Why shouldnt office users use windows? It works with everything. Their domain controllers are windows (btw, do you work with computers?).
Dell is releasing Ubuntu because variety is the spice of life and the more flavors you offer, you can cater to everybody (think of the most successful restaurants like Cheesecake Factory - they offer something for EVERYBODY...not just the person who likes chicken fingers and honey mustard). Apple is using Intel procs and you can install xp on their boxes (and dont forget the cost of an apple system and the difficulty in repairing it) - plus they're in the hardware business too ...it's like comparing apples to microsofts.
Also - I don't get the whole internet argument at all - how does the internet prevent MS from growing? MS connects to the internet just fine.
If MS didnt own everybody, they wouldnt be fighting so hard to get away from it. At the end of the day, no matter how hard one tries, they can't win.
bye.
Linux is great for the techy...but it would never fly in mainstream... homes and business for individual use. Linux is great and all but 90% of those using Linux on the desktop are still dual booting to Windows.
Linux makes great servers but as for the desktop it is just way behind Windows. Games, Graphics, and drivers are all behind.
There is also no clear development path with Linix and open source. It's like a moth at the light.
desktop any time soon - and this is coming from a desktop
Linux developer! I've been developing my own distribution
(Ultima Linux) over three years now, and here's what I've
noticed:
1) Video drivers are outright painful to set up. NVIDIA
distributes three proprietary driver versions *per
platform*, and none of them are compatible with all of
their cards. The installers for these are a pain to use,
distributing them is nearly impossible because of the
aforementioned *three versions*, and most larger
distributions outright refuse to include them because
they're not "free software". And performance still
doesn't equal that of Windows.
2) Most developers seem to spend time with silly things
like arguing over "free" vs. "open", whether or not it's
supposed to be "GNU/Linux" or just "Linux", etc. Don't
get me started on the whole "Iceweasel" scandal. A lot of
code is simply duplication of efforts (GNOME vs. KDE), and
very rarely are truly useful features added. Did I
mention that CD auto-mounting has been in Windows since
1995, and we're only starting to see it in mainstream
distributions *twelve years later*?
3) Larger distributions, as said before, are unwilling to
include proprietary software because of either copyright
concerns, or simply because it doesn't "feel right". That
generally means no Flash, no working media players, no DVD
movies, no 3D graphics, no pretty fonts even.
4) There's too many distributions - something compiled on
Red Hat very rarely works on Slackware, for example. And
while the GNU guys spend all their time criticizing
Microsoft's poor backwards compatibility, they don't seem
to have any problem with new GCC versions breaking code
that worked fine in old ones. I almost never can build a
major software package without heavy patching, and even
then I run into obscure compiler errors; I'm sorry, but
developing on Linux is just painful.
All that, by the way, is not even considering 64-bit
platforms.
5) Hardware support for other devices, especially wireless
and printers, is abysmal. Usually the fastest way is to
use ndiswrapper and run the Windows drivers, and often
it's also the only way because there's no "free" ones.
Meanwhile developers blame the *company* for not providing
documentation. This from the same people who rarely
document anything they do themselves - Linux documentation
is simply a joke.
There are quite a few more reasons; these are just a few
of the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
This is not meant as a personal attack on any of these
people, but simply what I've personally observed in my own
experience. Believe me, I think Linux is great, at least
most of the time, but even I have WinXP running on my main
desktop - how else can I play games like "The Sims"?
And by the way, please stop with the Web-based operating
system junk, at least until you can make a version of
Firefox that doesn't use up all my system's memory - at
least Konqueror can handle just about everything I need
from my Web browser anyway, and about three times faster
at that. Or maybe make OpenOffice.org take less than
twenty minutes to start up, if I could just find a ribbon
for the thing I seriously would just use my typewriter.
Mainstream desktop Linux is a nice dream, but believe me,
it's not gonna happen...
They are endeavoring to build a windows compatible operating system, and if they succeed, I would surely switch. I don't buy new windows software anymore, except for tax preparation programs. Mostly, all I really need is something that will run the windows software I already own. So, if there's an alternative that will get me away from the never ending cycle of Microsoft Windows upgrades, complete with new bugs and virus vulnerability, and now DRM, and who knows what kind of backdoors and hooks that leak my personal data back to Microsoft (and the government?(Consider the possibility there's a reason the government continues to allow the Microsoft monopoly to exist) because, since the bits are closed, I don't know what they're doing in the background, I'm there!
As for Vista, there's not anything that can convince me to upgrade to that. I'll go Mac first! But Linux is well on it's way to becoming a viable desktop alternative for just about everyone. I don't think the desktop will ever die, but it's importance will diminish as new web connected devices continue to increase.
It is criminal that so many good programs cannot be fixed, maintained or developed any further.
For example, it is high time that Windows 98 entered the public domain. It is ten years old, MS no longer supports it and later OSs are radically different (sez MS PR) but I suspect that MS would fight this. Can't think why...
- Microsoft's head start is not enough.
- by hozelda July 24, 2007 6:10 AM PDT
- martinultima,
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(10 Comments)>> Nope, I'm sorry, but Linux is not going to take over the desktop any time soon
Take over? Let's start with 20% market share. We'll move from there.
>> 1) Video drivers are outright painful to set up. NVIDIA... And performance still doesn't equal that of Windows.
I think Nvidia dedicates minimal resources to Linux drivers (in terms of manpower). Nvidia can't ignore Linux in the % teens market share. That today the performance of the closed Nvidia drivers for Linux rival those of Windows for many cards gives an indication of what is to come once Linux climbs a little higher.
I had no problem whatsoever getting driver support out of the box for some of the distros I have used. With Linux pre-installed more frequently, this will not be on the problem radar. The blip will disappear. It has nothing to do with Linux. Some higher market share and you will be laughing about the good old days when there used to be some driver issues.
>> 2) Most developers seem to spend time with silly things like arguing over "free" vs. "open"
It's hard to imagine how so much software could get written when "most developers" are bickering. There must be a whole lot more Linux developers than I had imagined. We have the millions of lines getting written up by a minority of developers. Pretty impressive talent I'd say.
>> A lot of code is simply duplication of efforts (GNOME vs. KDE)
Are you sure you don't work for a monopolist? I guess there is too much duplication of effort with manufacturers of all sorts still fighting over the apple pie business. So many brands and varieties of apple pies. Soap. Banking options. I can't handle it. How does the Unites States of America handle so much duplication of effort throughout its economy? That and funky designs on corn fields are the last remaining great mysteries of this country.
>> ..and very rarely are truly useful features added.
I disagree completely with you there. Regardless, you forget that we are principally competing against Windows XP and Vista. The bar has not been set that high. We are talking about software costing only a few hundred bucks (well, Linux is free, but you get the idea about the usual desktop market pay-for software).
>> Did I mention that CD auto-mounting has been in Windows since 1995, and we're only starting to see it in mainstream distributions *twelve years later*?
You did mention it. You also mentioned that you build distributions. Are they live CD flavors? It's amazing to me how advanced Linux is and how simple to use that mere mortals (one-person teams in fact) can build whole Linux distributions. And fully user-customizable live CDs!! ..and with only a few button clicks no less. Microsoft, with all the billions they rake in each month for years now still hasn't managed to make Windows that easy to customize.
CD auto-mounting is old by the way. You forget something. A Windows 95 hack would have made its way to Linux in 1992 if possible if the volume distribution had been there. With more volunteers now than ever and continuous growing support by industry, Linux is moving very fast today. So fast that Microsoft forced itself to release a less than half-baked Vista in part to hold back Linux. Anyway, Windows 95 is very weak software. It was extremely low in capabilities and security by today's Linux or even Windows standard.
We have to be fair to Microsoft though. Despite the billions of dollars (which go to the stockholders anyway), they are only one company with limited resources. Otherwise, if I worked there, I would be embarrassed that so much open source software build by volunteers like yourself (sometimes one person armies) outperforms so much of Windows software. Even things like Samba and Wine have outdone Windows despite being reveresed-engineered efforts. And who can forget all the web servers and many other applications that simply work faster or better on Linux.
Many branches of the US military, NASA, Google, top animation studios, top software developers, and top supercomputing centers (among many others) don't prefer Linux just because its free. I mean these people have truckloads of money to spend to get the very best to remain ahead of the competition.
>> 3) Larger distributions, as said before, are unwilling to include proprietary software because of either copyright concerns, or simply because it doesn't "feel right". That generally means no Flash, no working media players, no DVD movies, no 3D graphics, no pretty fonts even.
Well, I can certainly relate to the it doesn't feel right. Unfortunately patent law in this country stinks today. It makes no sense, but for the time being, it does require some caution. However, what major distro that you paid for ($50 maybe whatever) didn't come with all the codecs, flash, the whole enchilada?
>> 4) There's too many distributions - something compiled on Red Hat very rarely works on Slackware, for example.
Are you complaining as a distro maker or as an end user? The end user sees none of this. It's easy for them. As for the developer, that depends on what tools you use and if you are familiar with them.
>> And while the GNU guys spend all their time criticizing Microsoft's poor backwards compatibility, they don't seem to have any problem with new GCC versions breaking code that worked fine in old ones.
Again you go with "all their time." It's amazing so much useful software gets written with all that bickering and complaining. We truly are amazing. In the hour of our day that we actually get work done, we do 24 hours' worth. What can I say?
As for breaking old code, it would be nice if you gave an example. I think you are in the wrong line of business if you are not prepared to maintain code. The end user is not tasked with that job, but if the developer won't do it, who will? If interfaces don't change periodically, software can't evolve and stay fit. Also, gcc is a software project not a company. If you want a gcc that always works, advertize your willingness to pay for that service and I am sure someone will step up to the plate to provide you with a newish compiler that works like the old in some particular way or other.
Also, and most importantly, don't change versions every day. Stable gcc versions are generally used for a long period of time. If you want to get new software versions, expect to deal with changes. Remember that gcc is an open source project. They don't hide from you. It's as if you are asking Microsoft, "hey, Microsoft, I want to get a copy of the state your compilers are in today, this minute, to recompile all my old code because I just want to: I am a masochist." That sounds pretty dumb, huh? People sometimes forget that just because a new version of something is out, it is not a dinner bell. Don't come and get it. Versions are released openly so that other developers can sync themselves and contribute. Unless you are a masochist, you stay with one version, and if you have to recompile for whatever reason, you use that version.. until you are willing to put in the work to upgrade your code. Some people are happy coding to C89 standards while others prefer the more modern C99. It's your choice. The old compilers don't disappear and they continue to cost $0.00 should you lose your copy and want another.
Yes, not everything is perfect, but that is why some distros evolve slower than others. If you are a one-man shop trying to keep a modern distro up to date just like the big boys, I pity your blood pressure, but take comfort that you are achiving something with Linux that not even an army of developers outside Microsoft can accomplish with Windows. And as for the live CD, not even Microsoft has managed that feat with Windows (probably because Windows did not stay fit).
>> I almost never can build a major software package without heavy patching...
This depends on what you are doing. This doesn't affect the end user. Also, if you are a masochist, you might be trying to maintain a distro that has everything in strange locations. Do you follow the LSB standard? Linux can be easy, but as it is open and extremely flexible, you can definitely make things hard for yourself (maybe you have grand one-man army plans).
>> and even then I run into obscure compiler errors; I'm sorry, but developing on Linux is just painful.
I think you have been trying to bite off more than you or practically anyone can chew by themselves while keeping a smile on their face. Remember what I said about staying with one version and getting to know the imperfections of that one version. Yes, it will limit you building a super modern distro, but like I just said, I think you are biting off more than you can chew by yourself.
Deep breath and relax.
Most developers would code in Python or Java not in C. C is usually reserved for people that like pain or have a real need for C's power. I always hear of how efficient Python or various other code runs if you are willing to recode a few key parts in C. [http://BTW, you may be talking about g++.|http://BTW, you may be talking about g++.]
Development in Linux gets less and less hardcore by the day. Gcc is popular for a reason. It offers options that many other compilers don't. If for example, you want to stick to compiling only for Intel processors, I hear Intel has a good Linux compiler. Also, there are open source alternatives to gcc that you may prefer for C/C++. Certainly you know about IBM and Sun Java compilers. Most of the popular interpreted languages aren't GNU projects. Most such language platforms have some company or other providing more sophisticated tools, but you usually have to pay to get them [yeah, kind of like if you were back on Windows pay pay pay].
>> 5) Hardware support for other devices, especially wireless and printers, is abysmal.
Again, some more market share and these problems disappear. The plus side is that you are likely to get more support for new hardware with Linux over the upcoming years than you will with unsupported Windows XP. And Vista is currently a joke supporting existing hardware.
Dell's Linux desktops come with wireless that work. There are tons of printers that work (multifunction devices are still an issue I think). The key is that you don't buy a Mac for example and expect all your Windows stuff to work on it. It's true, most users will need hand holding. They will walk into a store and expect to have a little sticker that says "compatible with Linux." This little sticker may still be more than a year or two away. For now, you google or you ask a friend using Linux what they are using.
Again, Windows XP is end of life and Vista is a chunk of chit with a lot of things. Heck between the small market share issues of Linux (you have to research more because vendors don't all do the work for you) and the DRM krap of Vista, it's pretty easy to find the lesser evil.
>> Meanwhile developers blame the *company* for not providing documentation. This from the same people who rarely document anything they do themselves - Linux documentation is simply a joke.
Linux documentation is not a joke. In a general sense, there is no more thorough documentation than source code. There is no shortage of howto's for Linux (mind you, this with the small market share Linux has and the fact that a lot of commercial entities are only now moving over). Have you even tried to buy a book? Oreilly and others have more Linux books than Crayola has crayons.
What you are probably complaining about is that you don't want to pay for documentation, you expect the free online stuff to be up to date at all times for the latest version of the software, and you want a Dummy's level book for something like gcc (which is a pseudo hardcore developer tool).
And to answer your main point: developers want specs or source code from the "company". That is what they mean by documentation. All open source consists of open completely available source that other developers can figure out and code to. No one is asking for Dummy books from Microsoft or from hardware vendors. They're even willing to accept less than the full source code.. no source code in fact, if detailed specs are given. The open source developers are volunteering to do the hardwork of developing the drivers or whatever code is necessary and maintain it for no charge to the provider. And of course, though they would like full specs, they frequently get much less and still manage to come through a lot of times (but it is frequently very labor and time intensives to reverse engineer stuff). Open source people give out their code and have to deal with others not giving out theirs. It's tough, but it can be very challenging (in a positive sense).
People that complain about Linux generally make these kinds of mistakes. They want handholding, nice documentation, limited access to the software (meaning, fewer versions to pick from), etc, but they think this is what the FSF, gcc, etc are supposed to provide. You are wrong. Go to Red Hat or any one of the commercial groups that specializes in offering what you want. And yes, with larger market share, there will be a lot more support from a lot more companies.
>> There are quite a few more reasons; these are just a few of the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Think some more. I enjoy this.
>> but even I have WinXP running on my main desktop - how else can I play games like "The Sims"?
Wine is looking good. Consoles are hot. Commercial entities are finding it more and more difficult to ignore the Linux platform as it grows in market share.
>> at least until you can make a version of Firefox that doesn't use up all my system's memory
I am disappointed with some of how Firefox works. It slurps up too much memory if you open say a hundred tabs or windows and it doesn't seem to want to release the memory at all ever (until you kill it.. I use Tab Mix Plus for session management so that I can just close Firefox and then open it and all the tab webpages load up again). I think it leaks memory (or at least it doesn't like to give back any memory it takes), but being realistic, web pages take up a lot of memory. Firefox is not perfect by any means. Some people prefer Konqueror, some prefer Opera, etc. The main draw to Firefox is probably all the features and that it works pretty darn fast on a very large selection of web pages.
>> Or maybe make OpenOffice.org take less than twenty minutes to start up
Cool stopwatch you used. 20 minutes, wow!
There are utilities to preload OpenOffice so as to approximate the pre-loading Microsoft does with most of the libraries used by MS Office. If you use OpenOffice a lot, this is what you would do. In fact, why don't you build a flavor of your distro that does this for the end user?
Or just use a different faster office suite. The native KDE office suite is getting good and there are many stand alone applications that work well.
>> Mainstream desktop Linux is a nice dream, but believe me, it's not gonna happen...
That's what I like about a free country and a free market... I don't have to believe you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjSDAUykkzQ